Counterpoint: A deeper look at prosecution of sexual assault

I do not take issue with the writer's position in "How is court handling sexual violence cases?" (Opinion Exchange, May 22) that there needs to be accountability in the decisionmaking of government officials. I do take strong issue with the summation of statistics presented by the writer that attempt to portray a decisionmaking process in the Washington County Attorney's office in a questionable light.

I take great issue with this, not for my own sake, but in defense of the extremely hardworking prosecutors and staff members of my office who go to great lengths to make sure that justice is accomplished in all of our prosecutions. A closer, more accurate look at the sentences advocated by my prosecutors show that the writer's position in the May 22 commentary was either deceptive or dishonest. In nearly every case, our prosecutors advocated for a sentence consistent with the presumptive sentence under the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines.

Relying on the statistics presented on the writer's website, I observed the following:

• From 2011 to 2016, the Washington County Attorney's office prosecuted 21 cases categorized as Criminal Sexual Exploitation (CSE) cases by the writer.

• Under the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines, two of those cases called for a presumptive commitment to prison and 19 cases called for a presumptive stayed sentence.

• In the two cases involving a presumptive commitment to prison, in one the defendant received a guideline prison sentence and in the other the presiding judge departed and stayed the prison sentence. The Washington County prosecutor asked the judge in that case to order the presumptive prison sentence.

• In the remaining 19 cases, the defendant received a stay of imposition in 12 cases (57% of all CSE cases) and a stay of execution in seven (33% of total CSE cases).

Though it wasn't discussed by the commentary writer, I will highlight the great work that staff members in my office are doing on criminal sexual conduct cases. Again, relying on the statistics on the writer's website, I observed the following:

• From 2011 to 2016 the Washington County Attorney's Office prosecuted 61 cases categorized as Criminal Sexual Conduct (CSC) cases by the writer.

• Under the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines, 30 of those cases called for a presumptive commitment to prison, and 31 called for a presumptive stayed sentence.

• In the 30 cases that called for a presumptive commitment to prison, the defendant was sent to prison in 19 of them.

• In the remaining 11 cases, the defendant received a departure from the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines and a stayed prison sentence. Washington County prosecutors agreed to a stayed sentence in only four of those 11 departure cases. In the remaining seven cases, the judge ordered a departure over the objection of the prosecutor.

The commentary writer correctly points out that I am on the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission. I take service on that commission seriously because the purpose and principles established by the guidelines employ many of the same values that prosecutors use daily in decisionmaking. The guidelines establish sentences that are fair, that promote public safety and are proportionate to the offense and history of the offender. The guidelines sentences are also "neutral with respect to the race, gender, social, or economic status" of the offender. Accordingly, in the cases cited on the writer's website Washington County prosecutors asked for a guideline sentence in 95% of those cases. I am extremely proud of that statistic and the work that Washington County prosecutors and staff do daily to ensure public safety and fairness in our community.